Today in Austin, the local affiliate of MoveOn.org, delivered a petition to Rep. Mike McCaul demanding that the Congressman "offer real solutions to the energy crisis, not gimmicks like drilling."
Accompanied by 852 signatures, the cover letter also said "Rather than more drilling, we need a massive program to switch to affordable, clean alternative energy sources and end our dependence on oil." In big bold letters it exclaims: "America must commit to producing 100% of our electricity from cheap, clean renewable energy sources, like solar and wind, within 10 years." One of the groups talking points memos also states that more offshore drilling won't produce any new oil for about 10 years.
It's interesting that MoveOn's 10 year plan favors risky, unproven energy sources over a known source they admit would be productive within 10 years. What also seems lost on these activist types is that, according to the Energy Information Administration, the price of gasoline in Texas has declined $.20 since President Bush announced he was rescinding the Executive Order banning additional off-shore drilling (from $4.01/gal on July 14 to $3.81/gal on August 4).
Of course, this could in part be attributed to changing demand habits, like less driving and driving more fuel-efficient cars. (And, hey, I did my part. Last month, I unloaded by 21/mpg 1996 Ford Ranger for a 31/mpg 2008 Hyundai Sonata.) Yet, could it also be that speculators see the President's move to lift the off-shore drilling ban has signalled to speculators that the supply relative to demand could increase, thus making oil futures a less attractive speculative investment?
Congressman McCaul's statement on the issue echos this thought: "Opening the OCS [outer continental shelf] and ANWR for drilling will signal our country's commitment to produce more oil. The markets will respond to this committment and gas prices will fall short term."
Maybe if Congress would get back to work and rescind the Congressional ban on off-shore drilling, we'd see even more significant decreases in gasoline prices. Lord knows my family's budget would welcome the reduction in this expensive line item. As it is, assuming about 2000 combined miles driven/month, and an average of 27 mpg between our two vehicles, the recent price reduction above has already saved my family $21/month. Let's say Congress does lift the ban and prices drop another $.30/gallon. That would end up saving my family $44/month versus no action on the governmental offshore drilling bans. While $44 may be a package of cheap feta cheese to Al Gore, to my family that's good money!
And, thus, there seems to be some understated acknowledgement of the virtues of drilling by the local MoveOn crowd.
Local MoveOn coordinator Bill Hamm, pictured above, said that increased off shore drilling would yield "no results for 10 years and the idea it would have any immediate effect [on oil prices] is silly". Yet, Mr. Hamm later admitted he would "agree with Paris Hilton's approach" and allow for limited off shore drilling. The Paris Hilton approach, as documented in this spoof campaign ad, advocates for limited off shore drilling with strict environmental oversight.
Well this is a conundrum, isn't it. On one hand, the group puts forth all sorts of talking points against "gimmicks like drilling." On the other hand, they're for "limited drilling". That's not a "gimmick"?
But more to the point, why is it that that the ideas of a celebutant gag video would have more positive impact on my family's budget than MoveOn.org's combined, documented energy solutions?
No comments:
Post a Comment